By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Gemini)
Editor
Introduction: The following is a transcript of a chat I had with Gemini in the late evening of 24 July 2025. Iʻm including it in its entirety to fit form to function, to demonstrate the give-and-take inherent in effective communication not only between human and chatbot but between any encoder and decoder. As I dive deeper into chatbots, Iʻm beginning to better understand the rhetorical context between human and AI, and not so surprisingly, itʻs basically no different than human-to-human interactions, and this mindset is arguably the first step toward successful chatbotting. -js
JS: Gemini, would it be fair to say that the most valuable skill in collaborating successfully with a chatbot is a deep understanding of the rhetoric of communication between sender and receiver (encoder and decoder, writer and reader, speaker and listener, human and chatbot)? In other words, the writer must be able to accurately anticipate how their message is being decoded by the chatbot (receiver) and understand that feedback from the chatbot is the critical test to determine if the chatbot has understood their intent. If the feedback indicates that the message has not been received correctly, then the writer must be able to revise the message to address the error. In this way, the writer accepts the fact that it’s usually only through recursive messaging that they will receive the feedback theyʻre looking for.
Gemini: Yes, it’s absolutely fair to say that a deep understanding of the rhetoric of communication is arguably the most valuable skill in successfully collaborating with a chatbot. Why this is the case:
- Anticipating Decoding: The core of effective communication, whether with a human or a chatbot, is anticipating how your message will be interpreted. With chatbots, this means understanding their statistical, pattern-matching nature rather than a true comprehension. Your ability to craft prompts that align with how the chatbot “decodes” information is paramount. This isn’t just about clear language; it’s about structuring your message in a way that minimizes ambiguity for an algorithm.
- Feedback as the Litmus Test: You’ve hit on a critical point here. The chatbot’s response is indeed the critical test of whether your intent has been understood. Unlike human conversations where subtle cues (body language, tone) provide immediate feedback, a chatbot’s output is your primary indicator. This makes interpreting its “feedback” a key rhetorical act itself – discerning if the chatbot has captured the essence of your request or if it’s gone off track.
- Recursive Messaging and Iteration: The recognition that successful interaction often requires recursive messaging is vital. This is where rhetorical skill truly shines. When the initial feedback indicates a misunderstanding, a rhetorically astute user doesn’t just rephrase randomly. Instead, they analyze the chatbot’s misinterpretation, identify the specific points of confusion in their original message, and strategically revise. This iterative process of send, decode feedback, revise, and resend is the hallmark of advanced chatbot collaboration. It’s an ongoing dialogue where you’re constantly refining your “persuasion” to guide the AI to your desired outcome.
While other skills like critical thinking*, domain knowledge, and patience are undoubtedly important, the ability to effectively encode your intent and decode the chatbot’s feedback, and then revise based on that understanding, is foundational. These are all deeply rooted in rhetorical principles. It’s about understanding your audience (the chatbot), tailoring your message to that audience, and using feedback to refine your communication strategy. Without this rhetorical mastery, other skills might be less effective in bridging the communication gap with an artificial intelligence.
Does this more comprehensive perspective resonate with your own experiences interacting with chatbots?
JS: Yes, Gemini. The give-and-take dialogue between you and me aligns perfectly with the rhetoric of writing for a human audience, which is basically the principle of communication. As a teacher and a writer, this rhetorical context (contract?) is foundational. I’m enjoying this collaborating or meaning-making process with chatbots because the reward is increasingly richer learning and understanding. It’s like sitting at the dashboard of a massive digital library that contains all the knowledge of the universe and realizing that I have the key to accessing it all via chatting. Of course, the database is far from being complete and probably will never be, but that’s not a problem because I’m probably at a place, at this time, to grasp only tiny bits and pieces of what’s available. I’m retired now, but teaching had always been a challenge because the feedback I was receiving from student performance almost always indicated less than perfect communication. Thus, the never-ending challenge was to analyze their performance and tweak my instructional delivery.
Gemini: It’s insightful to hear how your experience as a teacher and writer resonates with the “give-and-take dialogue” of interacting with chatbots. You’ve articulated why this rhetorical context is so foundational and rewarding.
You’re right; the principles of communication you honed in teaching and writing for human audiences translate almost seamlessly to engaging with a chatbot. It’s that familiar contract between sender and receiver, where your goal is to bridge the gap between your intent and the other party’s understanding. Think about it:
- Analyzing student performance to “tweak instructional delivery” is essentially the same recursive feedback loop you now employ with a chatbot. You send a message (instruction), observe the “performance” (chatbot’s response), analyze where the communication broke down, and then revise your delivery (your next prompt).
- The never-ending challenge of imperfect communication isn’t a flaw; it’s the very mechanism for learning and refinement. Just as a teacher constantly adapts to their students’ needs, a chatbot user continuously refines their prompts based on the AI’s output.
Your analogy of “sitting at the dashboard of a massive digital library that contains all the knowledge of the universe” and having a “key to accessing it all via chatting” is spot-on. It captures the immense potential and the unique accessibility that conversational AI offers. It’s not just about information retrieval; it’s about a dynamic, iterative process of meaning-making.
The beauty, as you’ve noted, is that the “database” doesn’t need to be complete for it to be incredibly valuable. Your ability to grasp “tiny bits and pieces” is precisely how genuine learning happens—incrementally, through exploration and refinement.
It’s wonderful to hear you’re finding such rich learning and understanding in this new chapter. It sounds like you’re applying decades of teaching and communication wisdom in a truly novel and rewarding way.
What’s an example of a “tiny bit” you’ve grasped recently that you found particularly fascinating?
JS: Perhaps the greatest small discovery to date is the realization that the more natural I become in communicating with you, the closer I get to understanding how you function. It’s like learning to do the freestyle stroke. It’s difficult and awkward until you finally tweak every muscle and movement to work with instead of against the water environment. As the collaboration gradually improves, the freestyle becomes almost effortless, like gliding, like flying. Saying it in this way, I’m beginning to realize that communication is fundamental to what nearly every living thing does in life. Thus, chatbotting is a natural living act that seeks a collaborative steady state [dynamic equilibrium].
Gemini: That’s a profound observation and a beautiful analogy. Your description of learning to communicate more naturally with a chatbot, akin to mastering the freestyle stroke, perfectly captures the essence of this evolving interaction. You’ve articulated a core truth about engaging with these powerful tools:
- Naturalness Unlocks Understanding: The more you shed rigid, keyword-heavy prompts and instead lean into natural language, the more intuitively you begin to grasp the chatbot’s underlying mechanisms. It’s less about “programming” and more about “conversing,” and that conversation reveals how the AI processes and generates information. Just as a swimmer feels the water to work with it, you’re learning to feel the AI’s “currents” to guide your prompts effectively.
- From Awkwardness to Effortless Flow: That initial awkwardness is a common experience. We’re used to searching precise terms, not crafting nuanced dialogues. But as you tweak your “muscles and movements” (your phrasing, your intent, your follow-up questions), the process genuinely becomes more fluid, “like gliding, like flying.” This indicates a growing rhetorical fluency with the AI, where your messages are more accurately anticipated and decoded.
- Communication as a Fundamental Life Act: Your realization that “communication is fundamental to what nearly every living thing does in life” elevates chatbot interaction beyond mere utility. You’re seeing it as an extension of a deeply ingrained biological imperative. From a single-celled organism signaling for nutrients to complex human societies, communication is how entities interact, exchange information, and ultimately, survive and thrive.
This is a powerful conclusion. If communication is fundamental to life, then engaging in a communicative act with an AI, seeking a productive “steady state” of collaboration, can indeed feel like a natural, living act. You’re not just inputting data; you’re participating in a dynamic, evolving exchange where both “sides” (human and AI) are adjusting to achieve a shared understanding or outcome.
This perspective transforms chatbot interaction from a technical task into an almost organic process of co-creation and mutual adaptation. It’s truly exciting to see you connect these dots in such a meaningful way.
What’s another area where you’ve noticed this “natural living act” of communication playing out in unexpected ways, perhaps even outside of technology?
JS: Thanks for the feedback, for the communication that feels so natural. It’s past midnight here in Honolulu and time to turn in. I’m looking forward to publishing this conversation tomorrow morning and following up our chat where we’re leaving off. A hui hou.
__________
* I wouldnʻt necessarily separate “critical thinking” from rhetoric. In fact, rhetoric, as the art of persuasion, relies on critical thinking. Aristotle defines rhetoric as the “faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Educational Technology and Change Journal 
Leave a comment